Good; this isn't distinguishing between the two tables of the law.



Here's a statement from the SOP:



So given that circumstances never demand things contrary to God's will or things He never sanctions, then we should be able to rule out this exception.

Besides this, your statement doesn't make sense. Take a look at what you said:



Knowing when a situation does or does not demand polygamy (assuming such a thing were possible) wouldn't be something instinctive. It would be something learned.



The Desire of Ages speaks of heathen who risked their lives to help missionaries sent from God, before they had read anything from the Bible. Also for 2,000 years that Bible didn't exists, so everyone from Adam to Moses would be an example to those who have never read the Bible.

Regarding your statement about their beliefs not being able to be traced back to Bible beliefs, I don't believe this to be the case. That is, what your asking me to provide an example for is not something I believe to be true.

True. But what I'm asking is - Cite an example of people arriving at the truths contained in the first three commandments without 1) learning about it through tradition, 2) through the contact with missionaries, 3) through contact with holy angels, 4) through a vision or dream from God, or 5) through reading the Bible.

Why should I do this, MM? I've never asserted anything like this. Also, none of these things helps support your idea. I've not argued against the idea that God teaches things in regards to His commandments. I've argued against the distinction you make between the first table of the law and the second. You've produce no evidence for the distinctions you've made.

For example, you asserted that no sin of ignorance involves the second table of the law. I know of no one other than yourself who believes this.

This is the closest you've come to answering my question without actually answering it. What do you believe. Did the heathens you cited arrive at the truths under the circumstances I outlined above? If not, why did you reference them in response to my question? What was your point?

Regarding my point, you've said that no one could know obey the first four commandments without the Bible, so I disproved this by citing two examples, both of which you agreed with. One was the people who lived before Moses, and the other are those who have never heard of the Bible, like the heathen I referenced from "The Desire of Ages."

Now you are asking a different question, with a whole bunch of extra conditions. I think before moving on to a new claim, it would be good to recognize that your first statement was incorrect.

Regarding your new claim, you seem to have assumed I disagree with it, but I've not comment regarding it. Actually your new claim is an implied one, from the request you made. You seem to think I disagree with it, since your asking me to cite an example. But I don't know why you're doing this, as I've never made any statement in regards to this.

What do these two examples disprove? Are you suggesting they prove people can arrive at the truths contained in the first three commandments without the Bible, without missionaries? If so, how? And, please cite a real example. Heathens being nice to missionaries does not constitute knowing the first three commandments. And Gentiles living in harmony with their conscience and convictions does not constitute knowing the first three commandments.

They disprove your assertion. ("MM: Please cite an example of people arriving at these truths who have never read the Bible")



No, I was disproving your assertion.



The principle goes deeper than what it looks like you're suggesting:



What are "His principles"? They are that which is embodied in the 10 commanmdments. Because they live in harmony with these principles, they will not perish.

Can you or can you not cite an example of people arriving at the truths contained in the first three commandments without 1) learning about it through tradition, 2) through contact with missionaries, 3) through contact with holy angels, 4) through a vision or dream from God, or 5) through reading the Bible.

This is what I meant all along when I first asked it. Can you think of an example? I'm not saying you can or even believe it's possible. I'm asking because I don't know your answer.

On another note - How did the heathen she wrote about arrive at living in harmony with the principles as outline in the first three commandments before coming in contact with the missionaries?

I don't understand why you're asking this. You made a statement regarding the Bible only, which was false. I demonstrated this statement was false. Please either acknowledge that or make some counter-argument in regards to my argument.

Before asking me for examples of something, the reason for such examples should be established. If I had disagreed with some statement you made where you asserted these things, then it would make sense for you to ask for a counter-example. But you've neither made such a statement nor have I disputed any such statement. So I don't see the sense in your asking for an example here.



Well this isn't even close to what you said. The way I would put it is that God communicates the truth to others by His Spirit. That might or might not involve the Bible. This seems like you're saying the same thing.

We've gotten off course a bit. Please comment on post 102604.

Tom, here's the history of my question:


Do you really believe the people who lived before Moses recorded the oral Bible did not have the "Bible"? What is the difference between having the Bible in hand and having it in mind?

Also, have you ever heard of tribes whose beliefs can be traced through oral tradition back to biblical times? In other words, they were aware of certain biblical truths which would be impossible to know unless they were passed down from generation to generation beginning at biblical times.

At any rate, you weren't understanding my original question, so I restated it, clarifying precisely what I meant. Now you seem to be unwilling to answer it. Why? I did not mean to imply you agree with any part of the question. I asked it because I have no idea what you believe.

You also seem to think you've unequivocally debunked something I believe. But I don't believe what you disproved. You're misunderstanding of my question led you to this unfortunate conclusion. Do you see why I felt it was necessary to clarify my question? Please, Tom, try to understand what I'm asking so we can discuss the issue. Thank you.

PS - The point of my question is to ascertain whether or not you believe it is possible to arrive at the truths contained in the first three commandments in a way not excluded in my question. Is there a way to arrive at these truths that I didn't list in my question?